Subject: Re: [boost] SQL: next iteration of sqlpp11
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-04 08:56:15
On 04-02-2014 10:40, Sebastian Theophil wrote:
>> On 2014-02-03 16:03, Roland Bock wrote:
>> In most usecases I encountered so far, it is totally OK to interpret NULL
>> values like default values, e.g. NULL strings and empty strings, or NULL
>> foreign keys or 0LL. For those usecases it would be quite annoying to have to
>> check if there really is a value, or always use get_optional_value_or...
> Hi Roland,
> while I can very well imagine that these "use-cases" exist, I would not like the library to make this the default. I think using boost::optional is the canonical solution that is also impossible to misinterpret.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk